England v NZ, 3rd Test, Trent Bridge, 5th-9th June

taipan wrote:

I am sure that Beefy's figures include games against SL when they were dross. No one suggests filetring those out.

Not really, only 3 games against them. Besides I'd venture to say SL's batting in the early 1980's was a lot better than Zim/Bang is.

PearlJ wrote:

taipan wrote:

PearlJ wrote:

taipan wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:All I was saying is either we accept the test stats in full or we ignore them completely.

I just get sick of people using them selectively.

Like it or not the minnows have full test status. I might not like it but it's all we have.

Whatever you say Taips - it's quite a pathetic stance, which you use to further your one-eyedness.

What one eyedness.

All I am saying accept the stats or ignore them.

If a player has a career of some length the stats should smooth out.

I am sick of people saying, for instance, Hatden's average is distorted cos he never had to play against Australia.

That is different to seperating out Bang and Zim though.

No it isn't.

I am sure that Beefy's figures include games against SL when they were dross. No one suggests filetring those out.

Aye. Agree with that. And the other minnows of their day such as SA and NZ.

Yep, lets start with Hammond.

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:
Cummon Dan those comments are made all the time. How often have we seen the comment that TGM and tgm never had to bowl against Aus?

Oh, so what? One is pure speculation. Other is cold, hard facts. If you cannot differentiate between the two - what's the point in debating further with you?

So the point still remains that over a certain period all players should get a chance against the minnows and the stats will smooth themselves out.

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:

I am sure that Beefy's figures include games against SL when they were dross. No one suggests filetring those out.

Not really, only 3 games against them. Besides I'd venture to say SL's batting in the early 1980's was a lot better than Zim/Bang is.

Sl/Ceylon had been producing some decent players since the mid-50s(Laddy Outschoorn and the like). The infrastructure was already there, they were prepared for Test cricket - obviously a reasonable amount of them weren't top class or even Test class, but there were some.

Brass Monkey wrote:

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:

I am sure that Beefy's figures include games against SL when they were dross. No one suggests filetring those out.

Not really, only 3 games against them. Besides I'd venture to say SL's batting in the early 1980's was a lot better than Zim/Bang is.

Sl/Ceylon had been producing some decent players since the mid-50s(Laddy Outschoorn and the like). The infrastructure was already there, they were prepared for Test cricket - obviously a reasonable amount of them weren't top class or even Test class, but there were some.

I seem to recall them getting rolled over comsistently in the first few series.

For what it's worth-

Imran- Equal best bowler of the four with Hadlee. decent batsman but more of a match saver than a match winner with the willow.

Botham- Excitement machine. Just went out there and 'did it'. Prodigious swinger of the ball. Powerful batsman with a fantastic eye. If he'd retired in 1988 then imo he would be without doubt be considered the greatest of the four.

Kapil- Not as quick as the other bowlers, but like Botham, he could swing the ball round corners. Hard hitting batsman who could turn a match in a session.

Hadlee- Without doubt NZ's finest ever cricketer. Magnificent bowler who would pound away in the channel outside off stump all day with good pace. Underachieved with the bat. The weakest batsman of the four, although he had a lot of natural ability.

Assuming they were all in their prime, i'd go-

1.Botham
2.Imran
3.Hadlee
4.Kapil

taipan wrote:So the point still remains that over a certain period all players should get a chance against the minnows and the stats will smooth themselves out.

So, I take it you've dropped that gash argument about the tgms and Hayden etc? Good. It was so poor.

The point doesn't remain shit. The likes of Harmison, Flintoff, Anderson, Hoggard have played about 2 games each against the minnows. Not 10. What's more, Kallis is usually 2nd change, which means that he is already probably bowling against the middle/lower middle/lower order.

It would be remarkable coincidence if all players met minnows for an equal proportion of games.

Therefore it is entirely reasonable, when comparing records, to discount the figures of those who do so disproportionately.

taipan wrote:

I seem to recall them getting rolled over comsistently in the first few series.

491/7 at Lords just 2 years after their first test. They've always had good bats.

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:So the point still remains that over a certain period all players should get a chance against the minnows and the stats will smooth themselves out.

So, I take it you've dropped that gash argument about the tgms and Hayden etc? Good. It was so poor.

The point doesn't remain shit. The likes of Harmison, Flintoff, Anderson, Hoggard have played about 2 games each against the minnows. Not 10. What's more, Kallis is usually 2nd change, which means that he is already probably bowling against the middle/lower middle/lower order.

Wasn't my argument, merely quoting points other posters have made against the averages. It is not Hayden's fault he is an Aussie, any more than Kallis arranges the the fixture list.

Poor argument Danny and you know it.

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:

I seem to recall them getting rolled over comsistently in the first few series.

491/7 at Lords just 2 years after their first test. They've always had good bats.

The likes of Wettimuny, Dias, Ranatunga... even Madugalle were better than any of the incumbants of Bangladesh - I'd warrant they'd all be averaging over 40 now.

taipan wrote:
Wasn't my argument, merely quoting points other posters have made against the averages. It is not Hayden's fault he is an Aussie, any more than Kallis arranges the the fixture list.

Poor argument Danny and you know it.

Poor lad. You're done, aren't you?

'It isn't Kallis' fault about the fixture list' :| You're joking right? I'm not 'punishing' Kallis - I'm analysing his statistics, which tell you he's a gashlord versus opposition who haven't got shitbags or talentless jokes for batsman. Statistically, this is - not blindly taking his overall average as the definitive stat.

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:

I seem to recall them getting rolled over comsistently in the first few series.

491/7 at Lords just 2 years after their first test. They've always had good bats.

So they were playing against minnows?

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:
Wasn't my argument, merely quoting points other posters have made against the averages. It is not Hayden's fault he is an Aussie, any more than Kallis arranges the the fixture list.

Poor argument Danny and you know it.

Poor lad. You're done, aren't you?

'It isn't Kallis' fault about the fixture list' :| You're joking right? I'm not 'punishing' Kallis - I'm analysing his statistics, which tell you he's a gashlord versus opposition who haven't got shitbags or talentless jokes for batsman. Statistically, this is - not blindly taking his overall average as the definitive stat.

No, by your logic we should disgard bowling figures against the tail.

Back in a bit, report to finish.

taipan wrote:
No, by your logic we should disgard bowling figures against the tail.

Back in a bit, report to finish.

Nope. That was an aside. But then, when you're blown out of the water, it's good to cling onto something.

taipan wrote:

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:

I seem to recall them getting rolled over comsistently in the first few series.

491/7 at Lords just 2 years after their first test. They've always had good bats.

So they were playing against minnows?

Yeah, of course...

344 v pak 1st test in 1982
454 v pak 2nd test in 1982
346 & 394 v ind 1982
385 & 206/3 v ind 1985

Brass Monkey wrote:

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:

I seem to recall them getting rolled over comsistently in the first few series.

491/7 at Lords just 2 years after their first test. They've always had good bats.

The likes of Wettimuny, Dias, Ranatunga... even Madugalle were better than any of the incumbants of Bangladesh - I'd warrant they'd all be averaging over 40 now.

I remember that test. Wettimuny got 190 I think, and Duleep Mendis hooked Botham for three successive sixes.

Hehehe, Duleep Mendis, the original Fat Boy. Good times.

And how sh!t are the English when playing at Lords FFS?? SL as minnows making 7-491????

So IIRC the world players rankings are smoothed for difficulty. pitch etc.

Does anyone have a link to show the highest rating obtained by various players?

http://www.icc-cricketrankings.com/

Name
Country
Rating
Career Best


1
S.F. Barnes ENG 932 932 v South Africa, 14/02/1914
2
G.A. Lohmann ENG 931 931 v South Africa, 02/03/1896
3
Imran Khan PAK 922 922 v India, 30/01/1983
4
M. Muralidaran SL 920 920 v Bangladesh, 11/07/2007
5
G.D. McGrath AUS 914 914 v England, 23/08/2001
6
C.E.L. Ambrose WI 912 912 v England, 25/03/1994
6
G.A.R. Lock ENG 912 912 v New Zealand, 24/07/1958
8
I.T. Botham ENG 911 911 v India, 15/02/1980
9
M.D. Marshall WI 910 910 v England, 30/06/1988
10
R.J. Hadlee NZ 909 909 v Australia, 30/11/1985
10
Waqar Younis PAK 909 909 v Zimbabwe, 09/12/1993
10
S.M. Pollock SA 909 909 v England, 25/11/1999
13
A.K. Davidson AUS 908 908 v West Indies, 13/01/1961
14
D.L. Underwood ENG 907 907 v New Zealand, 05/03/1971
15
S.K. Warne AUS 905 905 v England, 24/12/1994
16
A.V. Bedser ENG 903 903 v Australia, 09/07/1953
17
C.V. Grimmett AUS 901 901 v South Africa, 28/02/1936
17
W.J. O'Reilly AUS 901 901 v New Zealand, 29/03/1946
19
W.A. Johnston AUS 900 900 v West Indies, 31/12/1951
20
W.W. Hall WI 898 898 v India, 04/04/1962
20
F.S. Trueman ENG 898 898 v West Indies, 04/07/1963
22
D.W. Steyn SA 897 897 v India, 03/04/2008
22
J.C. Laker ENG 897 897 v Australia, 23/08/1956
22
L.R. Gibbs WI 897 897 v England, 02/06/1966
22
R.R. Lindwall AUS 897 897 v England, 26/11/1954
26
Fazal Mahmood PAK 895 895 v West Indies, 06/03/1959
26
A.A. Donald SA 895 895 v England, 25/11/1999
26
H.J. Tayfield SA 895 895 v England, 15/02/1957
29
H. Trumble AUS 891 891 v England, 11/08/1902
29
A.M.E. Roberts WI 891 891 v England, 22/07/1976
31
J. Garner WI 890 890 v Pakistan, 30/12/1980
32
C.E.H. Croft WI 887 887 v England, 27/03/1981
33
J. Briggs ENG 886 886 v Australia, 24/08/1893
34
D.K. Lillee AUS 884 884 v England, 12/03/1977
35
Kapil Dev IND 877 877 v Pakistan, 15/01/1980
36
S.J. Harmison ENG 875 875 v West Indies, 19/08/2004
37
C.A. Walsh WI 867 867 v England, 17/08/2000
38
R. Benaud AUS 863 863 v Pakistan, 13/11/1959
38
M. Ntini SA 863 863 v India, 26/12/2006
40
K.R. Miller AUS 862 862 v South Africa, 09/01/1953
41
M.A. Holding WI 860 860 v Australia, 30/01/1982
42
A. Kumble IND 859 859 v Sri Lanka, 26/01/1994
43
M.W. Tate ENG 857 857 v Australia, 14/08/1926
44
S.R. Clark AUS 856 856 v West Indies, 23/05/2008
45
C.T.B. Turner AUS 855 855 v England, 01/02/1895
45
G.F. Lawson AUS 855 855 v Pakistan, 02/01/1984
45
Shoaib Akhtar PAK 855 855 v New Zealand, 26/12/2003
48
H. Verity ENG 853 853 v Australia, 01/01/1937
49
H. Ironmonger AUS 849 849 v England, 10/02/1933
50
G.D. McKenzie AUS 846 846 v Pakistan, 04/12/1964
51
C. Blythe ENG 843 843 v South Africa, 11/03/1910
52
I.R. Bishop WI 840 840 v England, 06/07/1995
52
N.A.T. Adcock SA 840 840 v New Zealand, 02/02/1962
54
K. Higgs ENG 839 839 v Pakistan, 24/08/1967
55
R.G.D. Willis ENG 837 837 v Australia, 15/12/1978
56
J.A. Snow ENG 835 835 v Australia, 21/01/1971
57
P.M. Pollock SA 831 831 v Australia, 19/02/1970
57
J.H. Wardle ENG 831 831 v South Africa, 25/01/1957
59
Wasim Akram PAK 830 830 v Australia, 28/09/1994
59
N.J.N. Hawke AUS 830 830 v England, 28/01/1966
61
F.R. Spofforth AUS 827 827 v England, 12/08/1886
61
Mushtaq Ahmed PAK 827 827 v New Zealand, 28/11/1996
61
R. Peel ENG 827 827 v Australia, 10/08/1896
64
W. Rhodes ENG 823 823 v Australia, 26/02/1904
65
J.J. Ferris ENG 816 816 v South Africa, 19/03/1892
66
J.N. Gillespie AUS 812 812 v New Zealand, 26/11/2004
67
M.H. Mankad IND 811 811 v Pakistan, 13/11/1952
67
B. Lee AUS 811 811 v West Indies, 30/05/2008
69
J.B. Statham ENG 810 810 v South Africa, 21/07/1960
69
A. Flintoff ENG 810 810 v Pakistan, 12/11/2005
71
T. Richardson ENG 809 809 v Australia, 16/07/1896
72
B.A. Reid AUS 808 808 v India, 26/12/1991
72
M.A. Noble AUS 808 808 v England, 03/07/1902
74
S.P. Gupte IND 806 806 v New Zealand, 06/01/1956
74
J.R. Thomson AUS 806 806 v West Indies, 17/03/1978
74
M.H.N. Walker AUS 806 806 v England, 10/07/1975
77
W.J. Whitty AUS 805 805 v England, 19/08/1912
78
B.S. Bedi IND 804 804 v Australia, 16/12/1977
79
W.P.U.J.C. Vaas SL 800 800 v India, 02/12/2005
79
G.E. Palmer AUS 800 800 v England, 05/07/1886
81
F.J. Titmus ENG 797 797 v New Zealand, 08/07/1965
82
M.J. Hoggard ENG 795 795 v Sri Lanka, 28/05/2006
83
H.H. Streak ZIM 794 794 v Sri Lanka, 11/09/1996
83
C.J. McDermott AUS 794 794 v Sri Lanka, 08/09/1992
83
D.R. Doshi IND 794 794 v England, 30/01/1982
83
D. Gough ENG 794 794 v Pakistan, 17/05/2001
83
M.G. Hughes AUS 794 794 v England, 22/07/1993
83
T.L. Goddard SA 794 794 v Australia, 19/02/1970
89
A.L. Valentine WI 792 792 v India, 28/03/1953
90
F.H. Tyson ENG 791 791 v South Africa, 07/07/1955
91
S.B. Doull NZ 790 790 v India, 02/01/1999
92
P.S. de Villiers SA 782 782 v New Zealand, 04/03/1995
93
C.C. Griffith WI 780 780 v England, 30/06/1966
93
R.M. Hogg AUS 780 780 v India, 02/10/1979
95
S.E. Bond NZ 778 778 v West Indies, 09/03/2006
96
A.R.C. Fraser ENG 776 776 v South Africa, 06/08/1998
97
Saqlain Mushtaq PAK 771 771 v New Zealand, 08/03/2001
98
G.G. Arnold ENG 770 770 v West Indies, 09/08/1973
98
Iqbal Qasim PAK 770 770 v Sri Lanka, 14/03/1982
100
B.R. Taylor NZ 769 769 v West Indies, 20/04/1972

**gasps**

Where's Jackie boy? Surely those thrashings of the shite teams couldn't have gone against him? After all, look at his overall average!

Simon Doull. Legend.

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:

FFS JKL, he has better bowling figures than Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff and Anderson.

We debated this on Saturday.

Take away the Zim & Bangles bashing (the criteria usually used against Bell) and he's averaging close to 35.

He's not even near Hoggard & Flintoff as bowlers.

So basically the ICC ranky thing backs me up.

Flintoff & Hoggard are currently ranked higher than him and have been ranked higher than he ever has...